Evening Update - Netanyahu: Iran Strike Worthwhile

In recognition of the rhetoric coming from the U.S. Administration - that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would only delay their efforts (and thus not worth the effort), Israeli PM Netanyahu offers a strong rebuttal. It now appears that the U.S. administration and Israel are locked in a war of words, not to mention huge differences in how to approach this problem. Perhaps the U.S. administration hasn't been hearing the constant drumbeat from Iran, threatening to destroy Israel.

PM: Iran Strike Worthwhile, Even To Delay Nuke Program

This is a fairly long but fascinating article - one worth reading. Below are just a few of the most pertinent quotes:

In private meetings, Netanyahu backs strike even if Israel can't completely destroy Iran's nuclear program, 'Post' learns; Peres says he is convinced US will take action but poll shows 70% of country thinks otherwise.

Setting Iran’s nuclear plans back a few years to buy time for regime change or other unforeseen developments would be good in its own right, even if Israel cannot completely take out Iran’s nuclear program, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said recently, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Netanyahu, in private meetings, repeated a number of times that before Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, the Mossad and Military Intelligence were opposed because they thought the best that could be done was to delay the program for a couple of years.

The prime minister, according to government sources, said that taking action to set back the program is legitimate because the delay could give birth to numerous unforeseen developments.

For instance, he has said, such an attack – one that demonstrates the vulnerability of the regime – could hasten regime change inside Iran.

According to government sources, Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was reflecting Netanyahu’s thinking when hesaid on Wednesday at a public forum in Washington that Israel would be willing to hit Iran if it only set back – and did not destroy – its “One, two, three, four years are a long time in the Middle East – look what’s happened in the last year,” Oren said.

Among the arguments used most against a solo Israeli attack, indeed an argument voiced on Tuesday by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is that an Israeli attack could not take out the Iranian program. Many also argue that it would rally the Iranian population around an unpopular regime.

Netanyahu has also discounted the second part of that argument in recent meetings, saying that the Israeli rescue raid on Entebbe in 1976 did not bring the Ugandan public to rally around its dictator Idi Amin, but rather strengthened the opposition fighting him by showing his weakness.

Barak: We Must Make Iran Decision Now

Defense Minister Ehud Barak continued to address speculation of a possible military attack against Iran on Thursday during the Knesset plenum, and explained why a decision on Iran must be made now.

Barak said that dealing with a nuclear Iran would be incomparably more dangerous and more expensive.

"Dealing with Iran is not risk-free but in fact there are outcomes that we can't predict." However, Barak asserted that the government would be able to make the decision on the matter. "Any decision made, will be decided upon by the government and not civilian groups or editorials," he said.

Speaking at the swearing in of Avi Dichter as Israel's new Home Front Defense Minister, Barak said that "In all the wars and peacemaking (efforts) in Israel's history, there is no issue that has been dealt with as deeply as the issue of Iran has."

Also see:

Peres Under Attack For Undermining Leadership

U.S. Officials: Securing Syria's Chemical Weapons Could Take Thousands Of Troops